TESTING the results of two different ways of thinking

by Terry 172 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  The basic premise of mystical experiences. It can often be verified by witnesses, yet no rational/scientific explanation is available.

  brenda,

  of course, there is also a ration/scientific explanation for my, or LT's existence.

  that said, i am not against experiencing mystical experiences. it seems that it happens to a lot of people. it's when people try to convince other people of their reality, that my hackles go up. if mystical people want to admit that their experiences and subsequent explanations are SUBJECTIVE, and not OBJECTIVE, then honestly, i have no problem with them.

  i tried meditating on my vacation. i am aware of the scientific studies that document the fact that it is really a "shutting off" of the parietal lobe, and a "turning up/stimulating", if you will, of the temporal lobe. the same patterns are seen in people engaged in tribal drum chanting. but my experience was still cool! i still enjoyed it for what it was! for all intents and purposes, it was mystical. HOWEVER, i would not go around trying to convince people that because i had this experience that there was more to it than what is parsimoniously accepted by neurologists.

  and that's the difference between me, and people who have these experiences, and use them to reinforce their precious belief that there is an afterlife, and that they are not all alone in a cold dark universe.

  TS
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  trevor,

  I don’t expect anyone reading the story I have related to believe a word of what I have said. I do not share such happenings with my friends because it would make them feel uncomfortable. If such experiences happened repeatedly to a person, then they would have to accept the reality of their experience, regardless of their beliefs. This is simply my experience. It is not dangerous or damaging nor does it affect my ability to be logical.

  i believe you. the way you explain and preface your experiences are fair, and logical. it does not seem, in the slightest, that you have an ulterior motive, or use the experience to prop up other beliefs that are way less parsimonious. it seems that you leave the door open for the most probable and economic explanation, even if it is yet undiscovered.

  i must admit, that if i had experiences like this, or was in the position of your wife, my life would be a tad more exciting than it is.

  i feel a sense of awe at your experience because you have allowed the room for awe.

  cheerio old sport,

  TS
• 

  Terry

  
  Think about this for just a moment, will you?

  Our brain contains a lot of sensory data which it is up to our intellect to dissect, filter, categorize and define. After that we pretty much relate it by cross-indexing according to systems we either invent, are taught OR default to.

  We sometimes (often) INSERT what IS NOT there due to a peculiarity.

  We PREDICT involuntarily! This has proved to be quite a survival mechanism. But, beyond mere survival it has proved to be an annoyance and distraction.

  OUR BRAINS ARE PATTERN SEEKING.

  Here is an illustration of the brain's ability to "see" what is NOT there automatically.

  go to:

  http://www.cns.atr.jp/~kmtn/KanizsaWithoutPacmen/

  This tendency to "see" what is NOT THERE and to predict can interact in a lot of different ways. Sometimes we will get useful predictions based on illusory "data" and most often we won't. What we choose to call this is colored by our BELIEF SYSTEM already in place.

  T.
• 

  trevor

  Zen nudist

  all my life I have tried to make sense of the world rationally much as terry has, but in the end, I find that just paying attention and keeping uncertainty and an open mind to work best

  That just about sums it up!

  tetra pod.sapien

  I believe you.

  Thanks for that and your other comments. You have accepted my story without a shred of evidence. Terry will sort you out!
• 

  zen nudist

  Here is an illustration of the brain's ability to "see" what is NOT there automatically.

  we are dreamers
• 

  Terry

  we are dreamers

  We?

  Got a mouse in yer pocket?
• 

  LittleToe

  Terry:
  Are you really so sure that you've articulated your thoughts correctly, or that we've all misread them (or skipped thim entirely)? Knowing how pedantic you are, I wouldn't be that stupid...

  Pole:

  Naww, IMHO your logic is flawed.

  1) There are many blind people Tetra has met or seen briefly in his life. He understands why exactly they would find it difficult to "meet" somebody on a discussion board. He knows exactly what it would take to convince each and every one of them of the existence of the friend. All the parties involved in this situation know exactly what is the nature of the blind person's disability and what it would take to overcome it, so that the person could meet Ross the hypothetical friend. Does Tetra know why he can't meet Jesus? Do you know exactly what it would take for Tetra to meet Jesus? There is no methodology of knowing or not knowing aggreed on.

  Does he really know what it would take to overcome his blind friend's scepticism? In the extreme example I used, it would take meeting the source of the conversation, which in this scenario might be an unlikely event due to the distances involved. It would be more likely that I would go visiting than his blind friend.

  So too in the case with Jesus. I know of no magic formula that will make him appear. The wind blows where it will. He appears to be even more of a free agent than I am

  2) As I understand, you're not simply claiming you have a "friend". The blind person surely has some "friends" too, so why should the blind person question the possibility in principle? In contrast, you are claiming your "friend" is Jesus. Tetra's blind friend has never met 'a Jesus'. You say Jesus has a special relationship with you and he makes your prayers come true. Tetra's friend has all sort of problems with accepting that. Not simply because he has never seen or met this particular friend, but because he has never had contact with any "friends" (If we retain your terminology). At this point this analogy makes no sense and turns out to be totally anthropomorphic. How can he have no friends if he knows Tetra and his buddies? Oh, but Ross is a remote friend. But wait, didn't Tetra and the Canadian ex-jw's use to be remote friends to the blind guy until he finally met them? Anthropomorphic metaphors won't get you anywhere.

  Let's elaborate, shall we, since you seem to want to avoid the analogy by twisting it?

  • The blind friend has never been given a dime, or any slack in life. Tetra lays the claim that this friend Ross gives him stuff.
  • The blind friend has never travelled anywhere, and questions even Tetra's recent claims on that score, but he has too much "respect" to say so to his face. Nonetheless, he's not so silent when it comes to claims about this mythical "Ross".
  • The blind man has heard stories of travelling Scots before, and the similarities are far too similar to the Ross-myth, therefore it must be lies.
  • Apparently this "Holy Book" called the Internet, that he can't verify, also contains elaborate stories about breasts and pictures and fluff. Therefore all that is contained in that tome must be an elaborate hoax.
  • Parsimony tells him that since he can't prove it, the greater likelihood is that the story is false.
  • etc., etc., etc.

  As for "remote friends"? Naww, they met in a bar. They are real because he met them one day and never had to use "belief" (or blind faith, if you'll excuse the pun) at any stage of the relationship.

  Of course we could take this to even further depths of silliness by suggesting that he had an experience in life where he trusted someone once, and invested a lot of himself, his time and his resources, only to find that he was hustled. This might go some way to explain his incredulity.

  Let's not pretend anything divine can be explained in terms of them.

  On that I will agree

  Tetra:

  i have admitted on occasion that i could certainly be wrong about my worldview. this has been because he has been gracious enough to admit that his is subjective. but then again, i have nothing to lose if i am wrong.

  What tenuous grounds upon which to admit something

  but then again, i have nothing to lose if i am wrong. no life after death, not heaven or hell, no friend in the sky and in my heart.

  Your logic fails me, and I don't just mean in a Pascalian way.

  If you are wrong you may actually have everything to lose. If you are right, you've lost nothing.

  If I'm right I've won everything. If I'm wrong I could have lost everything (if I jumped on the wrong boat) or I could have lost nothing (unless you are assuming that I don't enjoy what I do as much as you'd enjoy any hobby that you might pursue).

  On the threeway split you have applied your rational mind to actively losing, but I have a one in three chance of winning. What happened to statistics now??

  is a lack of belief equally respected? if it was, then LT would be willing to admit, as i have, that he could be wrong. but that would be offensive to jesus, so he won't.

  Once more you miss the point entirely, else are being obtuse. How often need I repeat this? It's got nothing to do with me disrespecting someone. To "admit" I could be wrong would be to fly in the face of the data my senses and rationale received.

  You also seem to contend that because you can't force such an admission from me, I must therefore somehow disrespect your right to disbelieve? When have I ever done that? More flawed logic?

  for me, respecting the bullshit, respecting the religion, is on par with respecting the motives of osama bin laden, or george bush when he engages in faith based leadership. the root of what i disrespect is abraham. from people here, or otherwise.

  You have every right to hold that value and opinion. I personally think it's a little knee-jerk reactionary, but that's MY opinion
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  brenda,

  of course, there is also a ration/scientific explanation for my, or LT's existence.

  that said, i am not against experiencing mystical experiences. it seems that it happens to a lot of people. it's when people try to convince other people of their reality, that my hackles go up. if mystical people want to admit that their experiences and subsequent explanations are SUBJECTIVE, and not OBJECTIVE, then honestly, i have no problem with them.

  and that's the difference between me, and people who have these experiences, and use them to reinforce their precious belief that there is an afterlife, and that they are not all alone in a cold dark universe.

  Point accepted TS.... That is where I have grown personally. I seldom attribute my experiences to anything other than my experiences. I can postulate all I want on the source(s) of my experiences - personal or group, but I can not prove my beliefs to anyone else. With the exception that the outcome and personal beliefs formulated by my experiences seems to not be isolated to myself... i.e. other's have had similar/same experience and there are groups of people formed around these. Some of their resulting theories/beliefs are interesting and reasonable, where others are totally off the wall.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  You have accepted my story without a shred of evidence.

  trevor,

  lol! i guess there's a second time for everything.

  LT,

  i love how you and Pole are having a debate that should have been between you and i.

  Your logic fails me, and I don't just mean in a Pascalian way.

  i would only say something like that if i knew i were right.

  If you are wrong you may actually have everything to lose. ; If you are right, you've lost nothing.

  If I'm right I've won everything. ; If I'm wrong I could have lost everything (if I jumped on the wrong boat) or I could have lost nothing (unless you are assuming that I don't enjoy what I do as much as you'd enjoy any hobby that you might pursue).

  On the threeway split you ;have applied your rational mind to actively losing, but I have a one in three chance of winning. ; What happened to statistics now??

  my goodness gracious. so that leaves me with a two in three chance of winning? or have i already won by living my life like it's the only one, and not working for some future reward?

  probability? remember, that if in the large majority of circumstances the economic explanation is the most realistic one, then is not the atheist's chances of being right higher than the theist's?

  plus, LT, it's just a bloody lack of belief. if god were as loving and wise as people make him out to be, then should he exist, and be the administrator of an afterlife, then he most likely will reward me for using my brain instead of my heart. after all, he would have been the one to bless me with said. if he is so immature to punish me for disbelief in the face of nil evidence, then i would prefer destruction or hanging with satan in hell.

  so, LT's wager isn't so sturdy then? i'm enjoying life, i only answer to myself, and would most likely be rewarded by god anyways. i'm not saying you don't enjoy life. i'm sure you enjoy coming here and chapping my ass. :)

  To "admit" I could be wrong would be to fly in the face of the data my senses and rationale received.

  are you listening to yourself? or is that the problem?

  by your logic, i could say that i should not admit the possiblity of error in atheism because of the lack of evidence for the existence of god. that is practically the definition of arrogance, hence my assumtion that you are not admitting you could be wrong out of respect for your friend. to say otherwise would be an insult to you.

  plus, you arbitrarily leave out the possibility that you are simply crazy. why is that? but then again, this admission would be on par with an admission of error. you have no ability to prove that the being visiting you is jesus any better than moses could prove that he got the ten commandments from god on sanai. he visits you when he wants. like the "wind" you compare him to. you said before that it is a subjective experience. if so, then why not admit you could be wrong. if he only appears to you, then what's the harm?

  and then again, you also leave out the problem of explaining why he appears to you, and not others, like me. but then we have been over this before. but i hope you see why i assume you do not admit, quite simply really (it's not a big deal), that you could be wrong, is out of politness to the deity that visits you.

  You also seem to contend that because you can't force such an admission from me, I must therefore somehow disrespect your right to disbelieve? ; When have I ever done that?

  you've never disrespected me. but you disrespect the process of debate by refusal to admit that you could be wrong. you know as well as i, that neither of our positions can be proven or disproven conclusively. ergo my admission, and reliance on probability. is that not an honest course of action? does that not illuminate my motives? is that not a rational thing to do?

  let me go a step further. you asked me if we are falsifiable. i will admit that there is a small chance that you and i do not exist respectively. it's small, but it's there. the same with your deity. there is a possibility you are not crazy. but even if you weren't, and jesus did exist, much to the consternation of everyone who does not have the privilege of association that you do, i would still be remiss to worship him, since he doesn't seem to be doing anythingthing about the canadian seal slaughter. and harp seals have no reward of an afterlife even though while on earth he shared a common ancestor with them.

  TS
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  BTW trevor, i don't need evidence for awe.